Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (169379)	6/10/2006 10:42:49 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 793778

I agree that that the UNSC would not accept the term "all necessary means". The reason for non-acceptance probably had more to do with the relationship of Saddam with France and Russia than with the fact that Iraq was not currently invading anyone. My only point was that in the language of diplomacy "serious consequences" does not appear to mean war. I also disagree with your view that if it's necessary to invade a country for any reason other than its attack on a neighbour, then you have to do it and ask forgiveness later. Certainly the UN could have authorized intervention in Rwanda and would have done so if the US and France had not blocked any action by the Security Council. My own view is that one of the biggest impediments to UN effectiveness is the fact that any one of the permanent members of the Security Council has veto power. I don't see how this can be solved as none of the five would be likely to give up that power.